LogFAQs


Current Events > Anyone else watch Audit the Audit?

Topic List
Page List: 1
GeraldDarko
06/02/23 8:14:49 PM
#1:


Really like the channel. A lot of the fist amendment auditor channels feel pretty biased. He still holds cops to a much higher standard, like criticizing an officer for swearing or being rude, but not the auditor. But it's clear a lot of the auditors are misinformed about the law, and he doesn't hesitate to point out when they're wrong.

---
Carpe petat
... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten
06/02/23 8:35:19 PM
#2:


Yes. I watch a lot of cop videos. I like to keep an eye on the latest injustices
... Copied to Clipboard!
GeraldDarko
06/02/23 8:43:19 PM
#3:


Zikten posted...
Yes. I watch a lot of cop videos. I like to keep an eye on the latest injustices
I've watched a bit of lackluster, but there isn't much commentary, so I don't always understand what's happening. I want to understand and not just sit there and hate on cops. One thing I don't understand is how nearly every auditor tried to say the police must tell them the law they're suspected of breaking, you would think they would be better informed if they are going out and interacting with the police regularly.

---
Carpe petat
... Copied to Clipboard!
YourBestFrenemy
06/02/23 8:45:39 PM
#4:


GeraldDarko posted...
One thing I don't understand is how nearly every auditor tried to say the police must tell them the law they're suspected of breaking, you would think they would be better informed if they are going out and interacting with the police regularly.

Because if the police are going to detain someone, they need to be able to verbalize what crime they think that person committed, or is about to commit. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be detaining that person.
Plenty of times cops will try to detain someone for no legal reason. Asking them to verbalize the crime is holding them accountable.

---
You punched me in the boob! Prepare to die, obviously! - Roxy Richter
... Copied to Clipboard!
R1masher
06/02/23 8:47:48 PM
#5:


Watched some, seems like a bullshit way to get fucked if you arent super privileged

---
R1R1R1R1R1R1
... Copied to Clipboard!
GeraldDarko
06/02/23 8:49:25 PM
#6:


YourBestFrenemy posted...
Because if the police are going to detain someone, they need to be able to verbalize what crime they think that person committed, or are about to commit. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be detaining that person.
Plenty of times cops will try to detain someone for no legal reason. Asking them to verbalize the crime is holding them accountable.
They don't, actually.

---
Carpe petat
... Copied to Clipboard!
YourBestFrenemy
06/02/23 8:53:00 PM
#7:


GeraldDarko posted...
They don't, actually.

Police are required to have probable cause to arrest you, meaning they must suspect you of committing a specific crime. You have the right to know what you are under arrest for. If police can't/won't tell you why you are under arrest, lawyer up and get paid.

EDIT: Actually, there is a distinction to be made between detaining someone, and actually arresting them. And laws on that can vary from state to state as well. So you're right, cops don't always have to specifically indicate why someone is being detained.

---
You punched me in the boob! Prepare to die, obviously! - Roxy Richter
... Copied to Clipboard!
GeraldDarko
06/02/23 9:04:34 PM
#8:


YourBestFrenemy posted...
Police are required to have probable cause to arrest you, meaning they must suspect you of committing a specific crime. You have the right to know what you are under arrest for. If police can't/won't tell you why you are under arrest, lawyer up and get paid.

EDIT: Actually, there is a distinction to be made between detaining someone, and actually arresting them. And laws on that can vary from state to state as well. So you're right, cops don't always have to specifically indicate why someone is being detained.

Constitutional Protection When Waiting for Charges
Still, there is no general requirement that, at the time of arrest, an officer has to share this probable cause assessment with the arrestee.
In Devenpeck v. Alford, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that although it's certainly "good police practice" to let a suspect know the reason for his arrest when taken into custody, there is no constitutional requirement to do so.
And while there is a requirement for a "prompt" probable cause determination by a neutral magistrate, the High Court has explained that this hearing may be reasonably held up

---
Carpe petat
... Copied to Clipboard!
YourBestFrenemy
06/02/23 9:18:26 PM
#9:


GeraldDarko posted...
https://tinyurl.com/yrxen3d7

Constitutional Protection When Waiting for Charges
Still, there is no general requirement that, at the time of arrest, an officer has to share this probable cause assessment with the arrestee.
In Devenpeck v. Alford, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that although it's certainly "good police practice" to let a suspect know the reason for his arrest when taken into custody, there is no constitutional requirement to do so.
And while there is a requirement for a "prompt" probable cause determination by a neutral magistrate, the High Court has explained that this hearing may be reasonably held up

Very interesting, I was unaware of this. Thanks for sharing.
Here in CO, they can hold you for up to 48 hours. If they can't advise you why you were arrested or charge you by then, they have to release you.

---
You punched me in the boob! Prepare to die, obviously! - Roxy Richter
... Copied to Clipboard!
GeraldDarko
06/02/23 9:23:09 PM
#10:


YourBestFrenemy posted...
Very interesting, I was unaware of this. Thanks for sharing.
Here in CO, they can hold you for up to 48 hours. If they can't advise you why you were arrested or charge you by then, they have to release you.
Yeah, I only know because he points this out over and over.

---
Carpe petat
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1